Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks for this. This helps a lot. I ran your saved game using my FB 2.0 installation and saw the same behavior you did, just slightly different end results but pretty much the team running around panicked.

Then I loaded it in the patched beta version of FB and the behavior was markedly improved. In fact, I'd say, exactly what you would want. The team stopped at that row of bushes (not really a hedgerow), either kneeling or prone, took a couple shots at an enemy soldier in the stone courtyard in front of them, who then appeared to run off, then took a couple rifle shots at a Sherman that suddenly appeared far off through the trees - presumably to make it button up. Then they hunkered down. All four guys in the same place, no running in circles, screaming and shouting. Proper behavior.

That should cut through the remainder of the above discussion.

That's great to hear. I would still like to lobby against infantry opening fire on tanks with rifles, though, but I guess that's a whole different can of worms to open.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's great to hear. I would still like to lobby against infantry opening fire on tanks with rifles, though, but I guess that's a whole different can of worms to open.

I just ran it again, and checked. The Sherman they spot is opened up. The German troops took a couple shots at it, hit the turret, it closed up and they stopped firing. To me, I think that's an ok response. Chance they could have hit the TC.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Uh, no this is nonsense. The hunt command certainly is not supposed to cause soldiers to Fast into incoming fire and it does not cancel the Hide-command when contact is reached. This is one of the most useful command-combos in CM, in fact, because it allows you to move to contact, stop and hold fire as soon as contact is reached. In other words, you can recon without engaging in a firefight. It has been a mechanism in CM since Barbarossa to Berlin. That is 17 years almost.

I don't usually explain myself to people who call me a liar, so consider yourself educated:

Your team using the Hunt command spots the enemy, and attempts to engage said enemy AS INTENDED.

All commands attached to the Hunt command self-cancel, and the team activates it's "Take Cover" movement.

Your team attempts to fire at the enemy they've spotted AS INTENDED.

The enemy shoots back.

Your team realizes they're in mortal danger, and plot a path to the nearest solid cover.

The nearest solid cover is behind the wall.

The team runs into the open in order to run to the other side of the wall.

Once the team gets into the open, they come under fire from other unspotted enemy teams in the building to the right.

Realizing they're in even more danger, your team becomes suppressed, attempts to return to their original position, and takes casualties.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I ran a similar test, but had the JTAC team face a trio of insurgents instead of a taxi.

Upon taking fire (enemy not spotted yet), they stop and execute the Hide command. However, some seconds later they start opening fire in self-defence (as the enemy was rather close), but resume hiding after taking a few shots (and the cycle continues).

About infantry using small arms against tanks : they will try to shoot at an exposed commander.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't usually explain myself to people who call me a liar, so consider yourself educated

You are obviously a very ignorant and arrogant asshole, but nowhere did I call you, or imply that you were, a liar. I didn't even explicitly call you those two things.

9 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

I ran a similar test, but had the JTAC team face a trio of insurgents instead of a taxi.

Upon taking fire (enemy not spotted yet), they stop and execute the Hide command. However, some seconds later they start opening fire in self-defence (as the enemy was rather close), but resume hiding after taking a few shots (and the cycle continues).

Yes, there is always the case of AI overriding the standard behaviour. This seems to confuse people a lot.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Btw., some people seem to think that Hide commands attached to a waypoint only apply after that waypoint has been reached, but this is not true. Look at this example. The team on the left is given a zig-zag move order with a Hide command at the end while the team on the right is given a similar order except the Hide part:

The team on the left seems to be much more cautious, sometimes going prone and even hiding at each waypoint, while the team on the right never hides and always uses a kneeling posture.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, I issued the warning for the wrong post, but I think it's pretty clear why the warning was issued. Attacking people and using abusive language (in particular swearing) is usually an instant lifetime ban. However, in this case I gave OlafP a one week vacation from the Forum instead.

This thread is a fairly typical one that comes up from time to time. Someone posts a legitimate question/complaint, engages in a lengthy discussion, doesn't like people questioning his findings/conclusions, and then things go down hill from there. Seen it more times than I can count. It seems to me that arguments over TacAI behavior make up a disproportional amount of such incidents. That isn't surprising.

Combat Mission is not just an incredibly complex combat simulation, it is also a simulation of Human behavior. Anybody who thinks that can be done with absolute perfection must not get out of the house or onto the Internet very often As has been discussed here, there's almost always more than one justifiable response to a specific set of circumstances in a battle. Some of them are "correct" (makes sense), some of them are "incorrect" (does not make sense). If Combat Mission's TacAI wasn't exceptionally good, the game would not be playable, therefore it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority of the soldier by soldier, millisecond by millisecond decisions you all see when playing battle after battle are "correct". If we had one thread complimenting the TacAI for everything time the TacAI did something correctly this would be a very busy Forum (and incredibly boring!).

Of the exceptions which are highlighted as "incorrect" we usually see them boil down into one of three categories:

1. Only superficially incorrect. When things are looked at in greater detail, it's clear that there's something the original poster failed to take into consideration. After closer examination the behavior starts to look more "correct" than "incorrect".

2. Not ideal, but understandable. Human Beings make mistakes. Lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes! Especially when under pressure and with only split seconds to respond. Combat Mission is intentionally designed to allow these mistakes to happen. Especially in circumstances where there are no good choices for the TacAI to select from. CM's Pixeltruppen should reflect Human behavior until we are replaced by our eventual AI robotic overlords. Which means sometimes a technically "incorrect" behavior is often "correct" from a realism standpoint.

3. Truly incorrect. Very rarely a soldier or whole unit exhibits a behavior which can not be explained as "correct" either because of a flawed analysis or realistic bad choice by the simulated soldier/unit. Most often these sorts of examples are difficult to repeat because they rely upon too many fine points coming together in a wrong way. There's no way to fix these sorts of issues and we have to live with them. Most people chalk them up to "crap happens" and move on. Sometimes the conditions can be reproduced, at least to some extent, and a fix is legitimately asked for. Sometimes we can implement a fix (or at least making it happen less frequently), sometimes we can not.

Threads like this most often go off the tracks because the original poster insists that his initial assessment of the "incorrect" behavior is a bug/flaw no matter how many people in how many ways demonstrate that it is probably "correct" because of a flawed analysis or an expectation of perfect Human behavior.

Hopefully this long winded summary of the history of TacAI bashing is a useful perspective for folks

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Btw., some people seem to think that Hide commands attached to a waypoint only apply after that waypoint has been reached, but this is not true. Look at this example. The team on the left is given a zig-zag move order with a Hide command at the end while the team on the right is given a similar order except the Hide part:

The team on the left seems to be much more cautious, sometimes going prone and even hiding at each waypoint, while the team on the right never hides and always uses a kneeling posture.

That's interesting. Target Arcs only work at & after the waypoint they are assigned so I did not expect this behavior from the Hide command.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Btw., some people seem to think that Hide commands attached to a waypoint only apply after that waypoint has been reached, but this is not true. Look at this example. The team on the left is given a zig-zag move order with a Hide command at the end while the team on the right is given a similar order except the Hide part:

The team on the left seems to be much more cautious, sometimes going prone and even hiding at each waypoint, while the team on the right never hides and always uses a kneeling posture.

Would´ve been interesting to see all of the plottet movement orders, not just the final ones. The left team could well have started in "Hide" and preserving it for all the intermediate movement orders, without setting it explicitely. Something I do in my own games oftenly as well, but not for the hide, but rather for short going into full cover (sometimes paused 5-10 seconds), before continuing with follow up move orders.

All other factors left aside... if I see a minus leader anywhere, this guy and his fellows automatically go into second line, or receive least important tasks on the BF. A -2 leader has a very high chance for making FUBAR´ed decisions and like in OlafP´s very first example I´d still put my bets on the leaders -2 rating paired with green experience to lead to given end situation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I ran a similar test, but had the JTAC team face a trio of insurgents instead of a taxi.

Upon taking fire (enemy not spotted yet), they stop and execute the Hide command. However, some seconds later they start opening fire in self-defence (as the enemy was rather close), but resume hiding after taking a few shots (and the cycle continues).

How about a test that actually mirrors what the original complaint was about, a team SPOTTING the enemy first, before the movement is completed.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If we had one thread complimenting the TacAI for everything time the TacAI did something correctly this would be a very busy Forum (and incredibly boring!).

Steve

Not really, that would be some awesome video to watch! I still recall a little Vignette in an AAR where a 3 man team got into a short firefight with an opposing team over a hedgerow that was outstanding cool to watch. Exhausted, short of ammo with a team leader that tried to surrender and the third team member shot, the lone pixeltruppen overcame his opponents with the judicious use of a couple hand grenades.

Perhaps. I just get sick of people telling me my eyeballs do not function.

I learned about the pitfalls of excessive use of the 'Hunt' command the hard way, by using it in every conceivable situation I could. I then learned to stop doing this because of a plethora of adverse effects. For example, if you have a platoon of tanks in line abreast all using the 'Hunt' command, and one tank gets shot at, only the tanks near enough to notice the shot will stop moving, meanwhile Tank #4 will continue rolling forward right into the sights of that 75mm gun and get blown up.

As far as the 'Hide' command is concerned, let me be clear for the benefit of the audience:

Once the Hide toggle is hit, it stays hit. Regardless of where it is placed in a movement string, it stays toggled. If the movement string is aborted, the team will hide. Most of the time you do not notice the toggle because the movement string is not aborted. CMx1 had a system that truly allowed you to string together commands like, 'Rotate To and Hide' and each would fire off in turn. In CMx2, 'Hide' is a behavior switch that is toggled, either the team is trying to hide, or it is not. If the team comes under fire, then they will REACT, regardless of whether or not they're trying to 'Hide'.

Much the same is the 'Deploy Weapon' command. If you toggle 'Deploy Weapon' it stays toggled. If the team is forced to abort it's movement before it is completed, you will sit and scream invective at your monitor while a machinegun team laboriously sets up it's machine gun in an exposed position while under fire. You then learn to leave the 'Deploy Weapon' switch toggled OFF unless you know for a fact the team is on a safe path, or you are actually ready to deploy the gun. When you give a movement command, the toggle defaults to OFF, which is why you must toggle it ON again after plotting a move order.

What we have here is someone refusing to learn their lessons.
It's not that the TacAI is bugged, it's that the player's behavior and expectations are incorrect, and that's about as polite as I can be about that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'

"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'

"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

Fascinating but I am confused!

Is the suppression meter relative or absolute?

The OP suggests the former. ( And my instinctive understanding would be the former too).

Share on other sites

The OP suggests the former. ( And my instinctive understanding would be the former too).

The suppression meter is relative.

This can be seen in units with high and low leadership values (all other factors being equal). The higher leadership unit will reduce the suppression meter level quicker than the lower leadership one for the same amount of incoming Firepower.

Also sustaining a casualty will cause the suppression meter to spike to simulate the immediate shock of 'man down!'

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A number of player complaints remind me of that old Henny Youngman joke: I went to the doctor, raised my arm and said "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc replied "Then don't DO that!" Often your pixeltruppen have difficulty in certain situations because they shouldn't have gotten into such situations to begin with. Getting yourself spotted 30m away from a hidden mg nest is unlikely to end well no matter what you do. Crawling across open ground while the enemy rains fire down on you is not going to end well no matter what you do. You need to look several chess moves back to discover the source of the problem, not the automatic AI response to the crisis.